python-testing

Select and run Python SDK verification with nox, Makefile targets, Ruff, mypy, pytest markers, sanity tests, type inference checks, and build checks. Use when adding Python tests, diagnosing Python CI, or validating Python SDK/provider changes. Do not use for TypeScript-only checks.

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/python-testing/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is an exemplary lean overview that defers detail to a single, real, one-level-deep reference, scoring high on conciseness and progressive disclosure. Its weakness is actionability and workflow clarity: the body itself contains no executable commands or validation checkpoints, relying entirely on the reference.

Suggestions

Add one or two of the most common executable commands inline (e.g., `make chk` / `make tst` from `python/`) so the body is actionable without requiring the reference for routine checks.

Include a brief validation checkpoint in the body for the batch verification workflow, e.g., run `make chk` and confirm it passes before `make tst`, to lift workflow clarity above the batch-operation cap of 3.

Optionally surface a tiny decision hint inline (when to use `make snt` vs `make tst` vs `make type_inference`) so the "choose Python verification" promise begins in the body rather than only in the reference.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is three lean lines ("Use this skill to choose Python verification." plus a single read-the-reference directive) with no padding and no explaining of concepts Claude already knows, matching the score-5 anchor; it is not 4 because there is no over-explanation to trim.	5 / 5
Actionability	The body provides only a file-read pointer ("Read `references/nox-make.md` before running broad Python checks or adding test coverage") with a trigger condition but no executable code or commands, which is minimal concrete guidance missing the specific steps; it is above 1 because it names a specific file and condition, but below 3 because no executable steps live in the body.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A minimal read-then-act sequence is present but no validation checkpoints are described, and the verification workflow (test suites, build checks) is a batch operation, so the batch-operation cap holds the score at 3 rather than higher.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a clear overview with a well-signaled one-level-deep reference to the real file `references/nox-make.md` (verified to exist and not nest further references), with content appropriately split, matching the score-5 anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is strong: it states concrete capabilities, gives explicit natural trigger phrases for when to use the skill, and adds a negative boundary that sharply reduces conflict risk. The only gap is missing synonym/extension trigger terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Select and run Python SDK verification with nox, Makefile targets, Ruff, mypy, pytest markers, sanity tests, type inference checks, and build checks" lists multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the verification toolchain, matching the score-5 anchor; it is not 4 because there are no real coverage gaps.	5 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers what ("Select and run Python SDK verification with ...") and when ("Use when adding Python tests, diagnosing Python CI, or validating Python SDK/provider changes") with concrete triggers plus a negative boundary, clearly matching the score-5 anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"adding Python tests, diagnosing Python CI, or validating Python SDK/provider changes" are natural phrases a user would say, but synonyms/extensions like ".py", "lint", or "type check" are missing, so it falls at 4 rather than a fully comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear Python SDK verification niche and the explicit negative trigger "Do not use for TypeScript-only checks" minimizes conflict risk, matching the score-5 anchor; not 4 because the boundary actively removes overlap.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ComposioHQ/composio
Path: .agents/skills/python-testing/SKILL.md
Commit: 9233288

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.